Acquittal; Effect (2002)

Delia sued Victor for personal injuries which she allegedly sustained when she was struck by a car driven by
Victor. May the court receive in evidence, over proper and timely objection by Delia, a certified true copy of
a judgment of acquittal in a criminal prosecution charging Victor with hit-and-run driving in connection with
Delia’s injuries? Why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
If the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case finds that the act or omission from which the civil liability
may arise does not exist, the court may receive it in evidence over the objection by Delia. [Rule 111, sec. 2,
last paragraph].

The extinction of criminal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action . However, the civil action based on
delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the court may receive it in evidence because in such
case, the civil action for damages which may be instituted requires only a preponderance of the evidence.
(Art. 29, Civil Code).

Actions; BP22; Civil Action deemed included (2001)

Saturnino filed a criminal action against Alex for the latter’s bouncing check. On the date of the hearing
after the arraignment, Saturnino manifested to the court that he is reserving his right to file a separate civil
action. The court allowed Saturnino to file a civil action separately and proceeded to hear the criminal case.
Alex filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the civil action is deemed included in the criminal case.
The court reconsidered its order and ruled that Saturnino could not file a separate action.

Is the court’s order granting the motion for reconsideration correct? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the court’s order granting the motion for reconsideration is correct . The Rules provide that the
criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and that
no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure]

Actions; BP22; Demurrer to Evidence (2003)

In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence
which he filed without leave of court. Although he was acquitted of the crime charged, he, however, was
required by the court to pay the private complainant the face value of the check. The accused filed a Motion of
Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the face value of the check on the following grounds:

a) the demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case; and

b) at the very least, he was entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability.

Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration. (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The ground that the demurrer to evidence applied
only to the criminal aspect of the case was not correct because the criminal action for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 included the corresponding civil action. (Sec. 1(b) of Rule 111).

(b) The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability, because
he filed his demurrer to evidence without leave of court. (Sec. 23 of Rule 119).

Actions; Commencement of an Action; Double Jeopardy (2004)

SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement duly subscribed by him,
charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu City) with the offense of slight physical injuries allegedly inflicted on
SPS (an actual resident of Quezon City). The Judge of the branch to which the case was raffled thereupon
issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure in criminal cases.
Soon thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the case for the reason that it was not commenced by
information, as required by said Rule.

Sometime later, based on the same facts giving rise to the slight physical injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed
with the same MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide against the same RGR. In due time, before
arraignment, RGR moved to quash the information on the ground of double jeopardy and after due hearing, the
Judge granted his motion.
Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries proper?

Was the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information correct? Reason (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries is proper because in Metropolitan Manila and in
chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by information. (Rule 110 Section 1(b), Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure).

 (b) In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor unless
otherwise provided in their charters.

No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information on the ground of double jeopardy was
not correct, because there was no valid prosecution for slight physical injuries.